I have a letter published in the main Irish daily, the Irish Independent, today (below the fold) where it is preceded by a letter making the argument that those holding my views are "liberals" and anti-catholic bigots.

You decide.

[Update]
Further follow on letters also published and added below the fold...

*I am appalled that the Government is considering ending its diplomatic presence in the Vatican. Ireland has had an association with the Holy See since Pope Celestine I sent his first envoy to Ireland in the early fifth century.

Foreign Affairs Minister Eamon Gilmore claims that this decision was taken due to a supposed nil economic return from maintaining an embassy in Rome, but I wonder is that sufficient justification?

Besides, when one peruses the Department of Foreign Affairs website, it appears that the State maintains a variety of diplomatic missions in many far-flung states. We maintain a consulate in Zimbabwe (at 2 Robert Mugabe road, Harare) and I wonder what 'economic return' do we derive from bilateral relations with that state?

I believe the proposed savings are trivial, comparatively speaking and I believe other cost-saving measures should be considered, such as the salaried remuneration of senior department civil servants. Finally, Mr Gilmore has an opportunity to upstage Taoiseach Enda Kenny and give Catholics a bloody nose. No doubt the Irish Independent will be deluged with approving missives from 'liberal' readers stoutly justifying this decision, but I believe their motivation is less to do with the state of our finances than simple, anti-Catholic bigotry.

Martan O ConghaileCastlebrook, Dundrum, D14

Closing our embassy in the Vatican has occasioned much understandable controversy, with most commentators noting that the proximity of the decision to the publication of the Cloyne Report and its aftermath can hardly be coincidental.

However, few have noted that we are not actually cutting off diplomatic relations with the Vatican and that we already have a perfectly serviceable embassy in Rome.

It is not unusual for our embassies to be accredited to a number of neighbouring states and a cost-benefit analysis of all state services is unavoidable in these straitened times.

With so many Rome-appointed bishops in our midst, it is hardly likely that the Government will be unaware of Vatican thinking or vice versa. The confusion of church-state relations with inter-state diplomatic relations has not been helpful in the past and it is perhaps healthy that our relations with the Catholic Church should become more similar to that between the State and other religions.

The closure of our embassy with the Vatican is merely a reflection of the constitutional, political, economic and diplomatic realities of our time.

Frank Schnittger

The LTE page editor left out my reference to the removal of the "Special Position" of the Catholic Church in the Irish constitution in 1973 but otherwise published my letter in full. Is this a case of Ireland simply becoming a secular republic or some dark conspiracy against the majority of its citizens who are still (at some level) practising Catholics?

[Update]

A Follow up letter has been published in the Irish Independent in an abbreviated form and in full in the Irish Examiner:

Much heat has been expended and very little light shed on the Government's decision to close one of our two embassies in Rome (neither of which are in the Vatican).

What is actually happening is that our embassy to Italy is being closed as a cost-saving measure and its operations are being transferred to the Villa Spada, our former embassy to the Vatican.

Nowhere else in the world do we have two embassies in one city, and the usual practice is for us to accredit our ambassador in one country to other neighbouring countries as a cost-saving measure. No small country can afford to maintain an embassy in each of the 200-plus states around the world.

The reason our ambassador to the Vatican will no longer be based in the Villa Spada is because the Vatican has a unilaterally imposed policy of not allowing ambassadors to Italy to be also accredited to the Holy See.

As a direct consequence of this, many countries accredit their ambassador to some other European country to the Vatican.

If the Vatican had wished to retain an Irish ambassador based at the Villa Spada, all it had to do was to allow us to accredit our Irish ambassador to Italy to the Holy See, thus showing due respect to the straitened circumstances we now find ourselves in.

So far, there hasn't been any factual or emotional response to my letters, although I wouldn't be surprised if they stir up some controversy as they refer to facts which have been strikingly absent from the Editorials, Op ed pieces and other letters on the subject. No where else have I seen reference to it being the Irish Embassy to Italy which is actually being closed (a fact I verified with the Department of External Affairs directly); and that it is Vatican policy not to allow the accreditation of Ambassadors to Italy to the Holy See which prevents the Irish Ambassador to the Holy See from being based in the Villa Spada (if s/he is also accredited to Italy).

The Government has also made no effort to defend its decision on the lines I have set out - leading me to suspect they are quite happy to upset Vatican apologists and to allow their action to be seen as a rebuke to the Vatican.

Sir, - We should close any embassy if there were irrefutable evidence that the representatives of the state in question had knowingly abused our citizens in our own country by acts that are intrinsically evil and in all respects contrary to our law, had met this evidence with a varying response of denial, obfuscation, equivocation and prevarication, had moved those who committed these acts abroad or to another part of the country to avoid detection and had claimed that its own laws supersede ours and therefore not subject to them. - Yours, etc,

DAVID KEOGH,

Killarney Heights,

Bray,

Co Wicklow.

Sir, - I have been anxiously scanning the online Italian press for the headline "Ireland closes embassy to Vatican - Roman Catholic Church cast adrift". Am I an alarmist? - Yours, etc,

DENIS O'DONOGHUE,

Countess Grove,

Killarney,

Co Kerry.

Sir, - With great respect, I ask the Government to reverse the decision to close the Irish Embassy to the Holy See.

The failures both at the Vatican and in Dublin to address the issue of child safeguarding adequately and the mutually insulting exchanges that have taken place - Archbishop Leanza's arguably correct but inept response to the inquiries and the Taoiseach's indulgent Dáil speech - do not provide grounds for such a divisive move.

Frankly, the proposal to save merely several hundred thousand euro by closing the embassy is not credible. It seems a small sum for access to one of the most important diplomatic hubs in international relations.

It is also worth considering that the closure of our embassy at the Holy See will be interpreted as deeply disappointing and even alienating by many Catholics in Ireland who have taken pride in the connection. If they form the judgment that it has been severed for political or ideological reasons, they will surely feel insulted. - Yours, etc,

PASCHAL SCALLON CM,

St Peter's,

Phibsborough,

Dublin 7.

Sir, - I read with surprise recent letters concerning the closing of the Irish Embassy in the Vatican and also the lack of Irish Governmental enthusiasm to invite the Pope to Ireland for next year's Eucharistic Congress.

I must confess that on more than one occasion I had to check that I was not reading an "In times gone by" page from the 1950s by mistake.

I'm afraid the day is gone where any church or state should be entitled to special treatment from this Republic and I was very happy and relieved to finally hear an Irish Taoiseach [also a practising Catholic] in the Dáil setting out his understanding of where our relationship with the Vatican now stands.

I am quite sure that next year, the new Pope will not be turned back at Dublin Airport if his passport is in order.

And I believe that there is another Irish embassy located quite near the Vatican if any future pilgrims run into any trouble. - Yours, etc,

If this is the 1500's, with teh internetz taking the role of the printing press ... who is the equivalent of the Holy See? The WTO? And who will step up to fill the role of England's Henry VIII, looking at the accumulated wealth of global corporations protected primarily by convention and tacit assumptions of legitimacy, frayed increasingly by a growing awareness of widespread systemic corruption, and taking it over wholesale in the interest of some other rival institution (in the 1500's, The Crown)?

Although Lollardy can be said to have originated from interest in the writings of John Wycliffe, the Lollards had no central belief system and no official doctrine. Likewise, being a decentralized movement, Lollardy neither had nor proposed any singular authority. The movement associated itself with many different ideas, but individual Lollards did not necessarily have to agree with every tenet.

Which, to me, sounds more like OWS than the Lutheranism of the Reformation which had a strict Party Line.

I agree with your observation Lollardy was a main stream of what became the Reformation.

Another aspect of the Lollards was the being useful to one segment of the upper crust to keep another segment of the upper crust in check, but not so useful as to prevent its suppression until the English Reformation was institutionalized under Hank v8.0.

However, the Reformation would not have had the impact that it did without the state sponsorship in the emergent Protestant states ...

... nor, indeed, as much impact as it did had the Counter-Reformation been more successful in re-establishing Catholic sovereignties, though even if it had, such a Counter-Reformation Catholic Europe would have been a far different thing than Pre-Reformation Catholic Europe.

The Hussite Wars became one of the forerunners of the Protestant Reformation and though predominantly religious movement it was also propelled by social issues and strengthened Czech national awareness. The Catholic Church deemed Hus' teachings heretical. He was excommunicated in 1411, condemned by the Council of Constance, and burned at the stake in 1415. The wars proper began in July 1419, with the First Defenestration of Prague, when protesting Hussites threw the town councillors from the windows of the New Town Hall. It has been reputed that King Wenceslaus IV was so stunned by the defenestration that he died from the shock shortly after on 16 August 1419. This led to the armed conflict in which ika would earn his fame.

The presence of the RC Church in Ireland would seem amply sufficient for exchanges concerning religious matters. As for political and diplomatic questions, there was perhaps a time when the Holy See was a force to be reckoned with in Europe, but that has long ceased to be the case.

I think that, increasingly, small member states like Ireland will rely on EU Missions and diplomats to represent our interests outside the EU. In the past we have sometimes relied on the British Embassy (horror of horrors) to represent us in Capitals where we have no presence although that was principally for consular matters. It is essential for us to maintain embassies in our fellow EU member states because we are all members of the Council of the European Union and will seek to influence decisions there.

The Lisbon Treaty enshrined the principle that any EU citizen can seek consular assistance from the consulate of another member state.

the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;

(Article 20.2.c)

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis

It should be noted that the Irish practice of accrediting our embassies to a number of neighbouring states is not limited to micro-states. For instance our affairs in Azerbaijan are handled by our embassy in Turkey. It IS a matter of simple economics. We cannot afford to run 200 embassies around the world, and most would have little meaningful work to do beyond running cocktail parties for the local elite if we did have them.

Come to think of it, perhaps I should apply for the post of ambassador to the Seychelles for a small consideration plus expenses...

So one would expect to have an embassy in the US, Japan, Germany, China, India and Brazil, but whether one has ten embassies to the ASEAN nations, one, or somewhere in between is more a matter of trade and tourism relationships ~ New Zealand would obviously have 10, but Paraguay might have one, or even none, sharing consular services with Argentina.

I find the following sentence in Mr. O Conghaile letter to be curious:"Finally, Mr Gilmore has an opportunity to upstage Taoiseach Enda Kenny and give Catholics a bloody nose."

I presume he meant to say "by not giving Catholics a bloody nose" given that Enda Kenny was widely perceived as giving the Vatican a bloody nose in his post Cloyne report comments.

The interesting subtext here is that Eamon Gilmore, Leader of the Labour Party and Minister for External Affairs, is an avowed atheist, and would not therefore be seen as being especially sympathetic to the Catholic Church - unlike the practising Catholic Taoiseach. Why he should be seen as having an opportunity to cause a rift with his coalition partner over an issue they both presumably agreed on is difficult to fathom. Perhaps Mr. O Conghaile mis-wrote, perhaps the copy editor did him no favours, or perhaps he is just politically illiterate and flailing around in desperation somewhat.

In the context you provide, I take it he's accusing Gilmore the atheist of getting one past Kenny and striking out against Catholics - the "finally" implying Gilmore has been hoping to do this for some time. Possibly copy-editing didn't help make his intention clear.

Perhaps Ireland is in the midst of it very own silent revolution, starting 10 or 15 years ago.

And I am reasonable sure that this and other embassies acredited to the Holy See/vatican State is not located in the Vatican State, but rather in Rome. So that there exists two full embassies with staff and ambassadors in rome. A fusion seems to make sense.

Furthermore, if the Irish Embassy in Greece can also handle Albania, that in Spain can also handle Andorra and Algeria (!), that in Russia can handle Armenia and Georgia (and hence avoid having to decide who handles Ossetia) and that of Italy can handle San Marino, I really don't see why the one in Italy cannot handle the Vatican as well (unless they are overworked, having to handle Malta as well).

Here is my source. I like the way they avoid problems by having the one in Switzerland handle Macedonia (sic).

Much heat and very little light has been expended on the Government's decision to close one of our two embassies in Rome (neither of which are in the Vatican). What is actually happening is that our our embassy to Italy is being closed as a cost saving measure and its operations are being transferred to the Villa Spada, our former embassy to the Vatican.

No where else in the world do we have two embassies in one city, and the usual practice is for us to accredit our ambassador in one country to other neighbouring countries as a cost saving measure. No small country can afford to maintain an embassy in each of the 200 plus states around the world.

The reason our Ambassador to the Vatican will no longer be based in the Villa Spada is because the Vatican has a unilaterally imposed policy of not allowing Ambassadors to Italy to be also accredited to the Holy See. As a direct consequence of this many countries accredit their Ambassador to some other European country to the Vatican.

If the Vatican had wished retain an Irish Ambassador based at the Villa Spada, all it had to do was to allow us to accredit our Irish Ambassador to Italy to the Holy See, thus showing due respect to the straightened circumstances we now find ourselves in.

Much heat has been expended and very little light shed on the Government's decision to close one of our two embassies in Rome (neither of which are in the Vatican).

What is actually happening is that our embassy to Italy is being closed as a cost-saving measure and its operations are being transferred to the Villa Spada, our former embassy to the Vatican.

Nowhere else in the world do we have two embassies in one city, and the usual practice is for us to accredit our ambassador in one country to other neighbouring countries as a cost-saving measure. No small country can afford to maintain an embassy in each of the 200-plus states around the world.

The reason our ambassador to the Vatican will no longer be based in the Villa Spada is because the Vatican has a unilaterally imposed policy of not allowing ambassadors to Italy to be also accredited to the Holy See.

MUCH heat and very little light has been expended on the Government's decision to close one of our two embassies in Rome (neither of which are in the Vatican).

What is actually happening is that our embassy to Italy is being closed as a cost-saving measure and its operations are being transferred to the Villa Spada, our former embassy to the Vatican.

Nowhere else in the world do we have two embassies in one city, and the usual practice is for us to accredit our ambassador in one country to other neighbouring countries as a cost-saving measure. No small country can afford to maintain an embassy in each of the 200-plus states around the world.

The reason our ambassador to the Vatican will no longer be based in the Villa Spada is because the Vatican has a unilaterally imposed policy of not allowing ambassadors to Italy to be also accredited to the Holy See.

As a direct consequence of this, many countries accredit their ambassador to some other European country to the Vatican.

If the Vatican had wished to retain an Irish ambassador based at the Villa Spada, all it had to do was to allow us to accredit our Irish ambassador to Italy to the Holy See, thus showing due respect to the straightened circumstances we now find ourselves in.

Frank Schnittger

Please note the misspelling of straitened in the last paragraph passed the sub-editor by - though not our eagle eyed Afew!